I bet the business model is to make money on the people who will rarely use this and hope the devil customers don't sign up in droves. Figure by next year they will start implementing limits like a lot of these crazy unlimited services do
I can see it happening for something like a gym membership, even if you've hardly used it quitting is like officially recognizing you're not going to get in shape and building one more barrier between where you are and where you'd like to be. But a cinema card, are you going to just sign up for entertainment and let it collect dust without canceling it? I suppose they exist but I'd imagine most of those aren't looking to get bulk discounts on cinema screenings anyway. And best case you get $10/months for a no-show while a movie buff might watch quite a few movies for free... ah well, it's not my business plan.
Well, 1080 Titanium, duh. It's essentially the Titan X Pascal - with ONE less gigabyte, and 8 less ROP's from the 96 the titanium sports, and roughly 500$ cheaper.
Well, the Titan has always been a massively overpriced card for those who must have the best under the weak guise of being a "prosumer" card yet good for gaming. But yes, most expected the 1080 Ti to create a new tier between the Titan and the 1080, instead it took the 1080s place and pushed it down in price without any apparent competition from AMD, had only very minor cuts and was boosted by an increased memory frequency compared to the Titan delivering 32% better performance than the 1080 for the same price as a Founder's edition from last year or 40% more than the new, cut price. You can't possibly call a $700 card for value but it carried a remarkably small premium for what it was.
I guess nVidia felt Vega was threatening and decided to aggressively take the sales they could get early, a bird in the hand beats ten on the roof. I imagine that if they knew Vega would barely battle it out with the 1080 they'd have set a $100-200 higher launch price. And while they make mourn some lost profits it also makes life for AMD pretty difficult, there's very little room for selling "premium" Vega cards. If they start approaching 1080 Ti prices like the liquid edition it just looks like a really poor deal, why buy an OC'd chip with 10-15% more performance when there's a much better GPU available. I think AMD has to rely on Ryzen/TR/EPYC to survive this generation.
According to some market volume data I found >100k Bitcoins or $3-400 million change hands every day on all the exchanges in total, so the market should have no problem cashing out a million in a day. If you can find an exchange that'll let you place a single million dollar order is another story, but if you really want to they'll probably let you.
Will they commit to the price at the time of the request or recalculate the value due to a price drop?
Any price you get from the exchange will be the last traded price. It is not an offer and there's no guarantee you can trade at that exact price. A market order is done at unknown price "I want to sell 1 BTC (at the highest possible price)" and the exchange will match it with the highest buy order(s). If there's a flash crash it'll still be sold, no matter how low the price goes and then your price becomes the last traded price.
The alternative is a limit order "I want to sell 1 BTC at no less than $3000", which may be filled (or partially filled) if there's offers above $3000 but will remain unfilled (that is, unsold) if the price would dip below $3000. It's pretty standard for stock exchanges but if your order is small relative to the trade volume and the volatility low compared to the latency it doesn't matter. Even if Bitcoin can crash in a day it doesn't usually swing that much in the milliseconds it takes your order to reach the exchange. It's the $1000 you can lose overnight not the $1 you can lose between clicking sell and actually selling you should worry about.
...more evidence of evolution doesn't change the opinion of people who don't believe in evolution. More evidence of Holocaust doesn't change the opinion of Holocaust deniers. Some people refuse the axioms of the scientific method, they've decided what the truth is and will ignore or alter the facts to preserve their belief. To the paranoid, everybody is out to get you and only pretending otherwise. To the conspiracy theorists, if it contradicts the theory it's part of the conspiracy. Also if it's not working, you're not doing it right or it's not a proper implementation of your ideology or religion. And if nothing else works call it fake news and muddy the waters as best you can, if the signal doesn't support your case bury it in noise.
As game developers, we call our automated agents "AI" in a long tradition of overloading and bastardizing words from other fields, but we all understand it's not actually real "AI" of any sort. I mean, even pathfinding goes under the term "AI" for our purposes. So, yeah, this is deep learning, but no more "AI" than what we do inside the games. Very often, we actually have to work to make our opponents *less* effective, because computers have so many advantages over players, especially in any game at all where reflexes count, or broad analysis of lots of details is important.
So to flip the board, is it fair to hamstring the AI because humans can't keep up? If we're not making a game for entertainment here, if the computer's AI drone pilots can decimate your fleet of human pilots why shouldn't it play to win? I don't mean to take the human factor out of it, but doesn't war often come down to arms and numbers? I doubt there was any true difference in the level of motivation for the Axis and the Allies, it was a war for survival. So from the computer's POV it's just playing an advanced game of Civilization, build the economy, build the military, conquer and win. Maybe you can score the occasional win on creativity but if you have more troops, better equipped troops, better supply lines, better positioned troops like pieces on a chess board you'll grind down the opposition. Though to be honest I don't see an AI on top, but even a small group of AI-assisted leaders can direct millions of people. If you're leading China's armed forces I doubt you see the actual people as such.
Sounds like a typical Trump and Trump supporter response - blame someone else.:-)
Um, it wouldn't make much sense for Trump supporters to "blame" anyone for electing Trump. That would be the realm of left-wing voters wondering how the heck the Democrats managed to lose. How Hillary lost to Obama back in 2009 is pretty easily explained by the charisma and skill he displayed in law school. How she lost to Trump, eh... it had to be a vote against her as much as a vote for Trump. I'm not sure the pounding Trump is taking in the media actually helps or whether it just twists the knife in the wound that the American people would rather have this guy than her...
Whatever you do in comments, easter eggs and joke RFCs, fine. Polluting communication protocols with your in-jokes is crossing the line IMHO. I don't want Chrome, Safari, Edge, Apache, IIS, nginx and all sorts of cache/proxy solutions have to deal with 418 "I'm a teapot" just because somebody found it funny. There's a time and a place for humor, this is not it. I'm not going to complain about custom texts for errors though, as long as they can be safely ignored you can claim lp0 is on fire for all I care.
It would not be shocking to learn of newly-identified problems with vaccines, particularly in newer formulations. Though it would be shocking indeed to learn of problems worse than polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. because we know that without vaccines those will kill and maim large numbers of people every year.
The problem is that it's a kind of tragedy of the commons, it's pretty hard to create anything without any side effects to anyone. People can die from anaphylactic shock after a bee sting. So if everyone else around you are immunized you have a rather massive herd immunity which makes it unlikely that you will be infected. If you're the only anti-vaxxer you'll do great, you avoid the possible side effects and in all likelihood the disease itself. If a lot of people start believing it the herd immunity is gone and you'll have an epidemic. A parallel would be the military and pacifists, if people were coming to kill you would you really let them? Or did you just take the moral high ground knowing there's a lot of non-pacifists who'll get their hands dirty for you fighting for your freedom while you're way behind the battle lines? The troll in me wants to place them at the front lines, you can shoot or be shot. Then we'd see how many are truly pacifists when they can't hide behind others.
Companies working on embedded systems for aircraft, cars and other road vehicles really care a lot about performance, especially when there are so many different CPU and GPU's on the market, all priced by the core, clock speed and pixel draw rate. If they can maintain interactivity while being able to use a cheaper CPU/GPU combo, they will.
Which is why they're going to completely lose out to Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, just like major phone brands crumbled and fell when the iPhone arrived. We all know it sucks, but after all you're buying the car first and the infotainment center second. My bet that in not so long their self-made junk is replaced by what's essentially an embedded smartphone for when you don't have one connected.
Unity was always a farce, many of us warned you. Now you want our help cleaning up the mess you've made?
To be fair, Canonical went where a lot of the market - Microsoft, in particular but a lot of other tech pundits too - thought the world was heading. Convergence, touch, one OS from smartphones to desktops. In retrospect, it's easy to see they were wrong. Microsoft had to backpedal on the Windows 8.x UI and Windows Phone is dead. Android and Chromebooks haven't merged, neither has iOS and macOS. You might say the Surface line has proven that cross-over devices aren't totally dead, but it's more of a border skirmish than all-out war. I don't know, it might have flopped because the implementation was bad too. But it mainly flopped because the market wasn't there.
Even SpaceX admits that for more distant missions (far outer planet destinations, oort cloud, etc), scaling chemical rockets is not sufficient.
Well, on the Falcon Heavy page they list payload to Pluto and escape velocity is only 0.39 km/s (0.03+0.02+0.11+0.20+0.03) more delta-v than that so anything inside the Sun's gravity well like the far outer planets is quite reachable by chemical. If you do ITS-style fueling in orbit or slingshot around Jupiter probably with a decent size payload too. The Oort cloud is a lot further out though, Voyager is at 139 AU and the lowest estimate for where it might begin is 2000 AU so like 500+ years even with all the gravity slingshots Voyager got. Since you won't get the same slingshot again until 2151 and the chemical propulsion is only a small part of Voyager's total speed I think you're looking at centuries even with a massive efficiency boost through fission.
Is it *really* "licensing disputes" on 40-some year old movies because the soundtrack or some actor didn't have a clause for digital distribution? I mean, a movie made in 1970, many of the principals are probably *dead* by now. They're not cruising iTunes or Amazon and calling up Sidney Bloomenberg on the phone and bitching they're not getting a cut. Their ancestors are merely happy that a check still shows up once in a while.
1. I think you mean descendants not ancestors. 2. You think dealing with heirs is easier. I think it's harder because there can be many heirs, they got no relation to the movie business, no career or portfolio to think of and very often they don't have the same interest in the art - it's an inheritance and they want cold hard cash. And they know their little piece of it is blocking a big release so they try charging a lot for it. And if there's many such little pieces, the project might not be worth doing.
I think some Linux game porting companies have experienced this, the game developer didn't think there was business in making a Linux version. But if somebody else wants to do a port, then they charge a ridiculous license fee because if somebody's trying to buy it then it must be very valuable. There's some strange logic to this at times, sure a lot of people will let things they don't use or need go easily. But you also see cases where something has been rusting in a barn for years, but if you try buying it then they'd rather not sell than make a "bad" sale. Even though there's no indication they'll ever get the real value out of it.
There are now so many different streaming services that its starting to make sense to combine them and sell them as a package. The problem is that this will bring back the old rot of trying to force people to buy packages they dont want just to get one damn show.
Well with cable you have their set top box and their selection of packages. While there's certainly a few "anchor" series like Game of Thrones, I doubt they'll be able to pull off the "our way or the highway" strategy as well as in the past.
The bastard is ignoring the court ruling and is keeping the access way blocked. I'd like to see the judge issue an arrest warrant for contempt of court.
Well until the judgement is final it's not final. Though I like the approach they typically take to this type of cases here in Norway, which is to impose daily fines. They typically can't be stayed so you can delay and appeal all you like but the claim against you is constantly accumulating and if you eventually lose it's going to be pretty massive. It's the same for missing building permits and such too, they can't ask you to raze anything. But if you've built it illegally and want to drag it out through the court system a few years, it's going to cost you dearly.
The problem is that blogs, armchair pundits and apparently young and impressionable Libertarians take a scientific finding of a possible link and does that classic "science says men are X and women are Y!".
Pretty sure geneticists say women are X and men are Y;)
Several times in fact, various flavors. They actually aren't bad. Until you're on day 4 with the same damned fettuccine alfredo, then you start thinking of that hot girlfriend who couldn't boil water without messing up.
Not hot. Not going to be your girlfriend. Or boyfriend, if that's how you swing. But I have messed up boiling water for noodles, my blood alcohol level at the time may be related.
I cook. I enjoy cooking. I use spices to cut the salt and fat, and most people complement me on my cooking.
Me too, if they find me cooking they say "I think you could use some help with that".
I can't imagine any prepackaged meal being either A) better than I could make myself; or B) Healthier than I can make myself. I can see C) faster than I can make myself; and D) humping it in a desert and wanna eat
If you include my natural tendency to make stuff with lots of fats and sugar because they taste good, I'm going with e) all of the above. Seriously, it takes a chef to make a salad taste good. Junk food and lots of toppings? Even I can't screw up that badly.
Ideally I'd have a robot chef to make me fresh meals. But second to that, I'm willing to indulge any attempt to make better preprocessed food.
MREs are trying to achieve two goals, if you haven't eaten for a week you're ready to eat anything. But to keep a decent stack in an economic fashion you'll want to rotate out the oldest and have your soldiers eat it without a rebellion rather than write it off as a loss. I've eaten some of the freeze dried stuff they use here in Norway, it's okay for the occasional meal. But it doesn't come close to the fresh meal you could bring for the first couple days of any trip.
I know some space enthusiasts talk about even a single civilization sending out a Von Neumann probe resulting in the whole galaxy being blanketed in a few hundred million years... but space is big, hostile, slow to traverse, and resources are really tough to get access to.
On the other hand we are really impatient because of our human life span. A hundred thousand years travelling and a million years per planet to build up the resources to shoot off another probe is not a blocker if we can only make self-maintaining/repairing technology to last that long. We have attention span of maybe ~100 years, if your grandkids won't see any benefit it's too far out. Then again, given the technological progress we've made in the last 100 years it's probably for the best that we don't focus on projects of that magnitude.
For example, I expect that within the next thousand years we can create life entirely from scratch. As in from a computer model and base elements bio-print a cell with DNA, put it in an artificial womb and grow in vitro humans. Forget generation ships, forget even sending frozen eggs and sperm that'll probably decay underway. We'll send data - with integrity checks - and build people on site, the first generation raised by robots, most likely humanoid androids. That all seems more likely than rewriting the laws of physics.
And longevity experiments, like can we create RTGs and processors that can last hundreds of years here on earth. More bad-ass telescopes too. And Mars is a good test bed for starting off on a rocky world with nothing. The finish line is so far out of reach you can't see it. But I mean before 1992 extra-solar planets was a theory. We haven't exactly done bad for the last 25 years despite not returning to the moon, we've just focused on other areas because the next rock has seemed pretty far out of reach. Even with Mars, some will certainly whine about when we'll go to the stars. Not any time soon...
For most of us there's a clear barrier between imagination and reality, dreams and being awake, fact and fiction. For some, that barrier is broken. You can see that there's "fashions" in lunacy, like after Roswell lots of people claimed to have been abducted by aliens. People read about being abducted by little grey men, then they get abducted by little grey men. A lot of the seed stories aren't created by loons though, like for example there's good indication that Roswell was about making money. And it worked extremely well, maybe they weren't exactly your average tourist but a lot of people came and spent a lot of money they'd never have otherwise.
Which is why I'm pretty sure most of the political conspiracy theories are plants, because even if they're nuts at some point Obama had to spend time and resources disputing the lunacy. And once the ball is rolling everyone can add their own flavor. Father born in Kenya? Let's start a birther theory. Middle name Hussain? Let's start some theories that he's a Muslim... and a terrorist. Black man? Let's start some "Malcom X" theories for white people, some "Uncle Tom" theories for black people. Probably some Illuminati/NWO too, that works for all people in power. The conspiracy theorists tend to love it when you pile it on. And once you get a big enough ball rolling, you start setting off the "no smoke without fire" alarms even in more reasonable people.
The Internet has been a great boon for conspiracy theorists, because even though it's made people with very narrow interests make contact with like-minded all over the world it's also enabled echo-chambers with their entirely own alt-reality. And a lot of people think doing "research" on say #pizzagate is reading all the drivel and watching all the YouTube videos about it. Then you have the semi-reputable sites like Breitbart feeding the fire by keeping an arm's length distance from the actual conspiracies while driving people to them. So plants are the spark, conspiracy nuts the kindling and alt-sites bring the firewood. And the rest of the world wonders why the fires are so hard to put out...
There's two fundamentally different perspectives here, the short perspective is Google's hiring situation right now. Hiring less qualified workers because they improve a diversity metric is both unfair to those better qualified and tarnishes the reputation of the entire class of workers. The long perspective is whether this has anything to do with biology or is the result of a cultural and social bias that girls like dolls and boys like cars you'd have to start undoing in daycare. If he had only attacked the short view and said that Google should invest in long term programs to produce female candidates that would get the job on merit, I think he'd be fine.
Though I haven't read the whole thing, my impression was that he instead went a little bio-deterministic and said that's just how the sexes are by nature and that Google should just accept that members of a particular sex are, on average, better at certain things. Even though that's certainly true in some cases as I doubt the Olympics will drop the female categories any time soon, it's a very contentious issue when it comes to intellect and personality traits. There's certainly a massive overlap, social attitude towards a female car mechanic or male nurse is probably way more important than biology. But some still think it's a good idea to fix the numbers first and then the attitude, because often the proof is in the result.
Yeah, as long as you intentionally fuck up the "get data" function you can make any kind of sensor or input device malicious. The samples are often a static size though so it's like:
Probably not unexpected, you have the quad-channel memory controller, the CCX interconnect, all the PCIe lanes, probably hard to power everything down. Since this is mostly a spin-off of the server chips I doubt they've given it that much care, a server with 32 cores is rarely idle. If you really wanted to bring the idle consumption down I think you'd have to do some kind of heterogeneous computing, but then you'd need a lot of OS/application support. I don't think AMD should bet on that, we saw how their APUs didn't really give much CPU+GPU synergy because nobody was writing special code paths just for a part of one player's processors.
If you're buying a Ryzen Threadripper or Skylake-X for gaming, I can say you've already messed up. [car analogy] That's like buying an 18-wheeler to haul your weekly groceries.[/car analogy]
...and then complain that everybody talked about cargo capacity and didn't mention it would be hard to park, doesn't have seats to take your kids to soccer practice and has terrible MPG for your commute.
Slashdot Mirror
"We should have a real domain online within 24 hours. If it gets shut down again, people will know we are on the black web."
A bunch of neo-Nazis have to use the black web, that's hilarious.
I bet the business model is to make money on the people who will rarely use this and hope the devil customers don't sign up in droves. Figure by next year they will start implementing limits like a lot of these crazy unlimited services do
I can see it happening for something like a gym membership, even if you've hardly used it quitting is like officially recognizing you're not going to get in shape and building one more barrier between where you are and where you'd like to be. But a cinema card, are you going to just sign up for entertainment and let it collect dust without canceling it? I suppose they exist but I'd imagine most of those aren't looking to get bulk discounts on cinema screenings anyway. And best case you get $10/months for a no-show while a movie buff might watch quite a few movies for free... ah well, it's not my business plan.
Well, 1080 Titanium, duh. It's essentially the Titan X Pascal - with ONE less gigabyte, and 8 less ROP's from the 96 the titanium sports, and roughly 500$ cheaper.
Well, the Titan has always been a massively overpriced card for those who must have the best under the weak guise of being a "prosumer" card yet good for gaming. But yes, most expected the 1080 Ti to create a new tier between the Titan and the 1080, instead it took the 1080s place and pushed it down in price without any apparent competition from AMD, had only very minor cuts and was boosted by an increased memory frequency compared to the Titan delivering 32% better performance than the 1080 for the same price as a Founder's edition from last year or 40% more than the new, cut price. You can't possibly call a $700 card for value but it carried a remarkably small premium for what it was.
I guess nVidia felt Vega was threatening and decided to aggressively take the sales they could get early, a bird in the hand beats ten on the roof. I imagine that if they knew Vega would barely battle it out with the 1080 they'd have set a $100-200 higher launch price. And while they make mourn some lost profits it also makes life for AMD pretty difficult, there's very little room for selling "premium" Vega cards. If they start approaching 1080 Ti prices like the liquid edition it just looks like a really poor deal, why buy an OC'd chip with 10-15% more performance when there's a much better GPU available. I think AMD has to rely on Ryzen/TR/EPYC to survive this generation.
According to some market volume data I found >100k Bitcoins or $3-400 million change hands every day on all the exchanges in total, so the market should have no problem cashing out a million in a day. If you can find an exchange that'll let you place a single million dollar order is another story, but if you really want to they'll probably let you.
Will they commit to the price at the time of the request or recalculate the value due to a price drop?
Any price you get from the exchange will be the last traded price. It is not an offer and there's no guarantee you can trade at that exact price. A market order is done at unknown price "I want to sell 1 BTC (at the highest possible price)" and the exchange will match it with the highest buy order(s). If there's a flash crash it'll still be sold, no matter how low the price goes and then your price becomes the last traded price.
The alternative is a limit order "I want to sell 1 BTC at no less than $3000", which may be filled (or partially filled) if there's offers above $3000 but will remain unfilled (that is, unsold) if the price would dip below $3000. It's pretty standard for stock exchanges but if your order is small relative to the trade volume and the volatility low compared to the latency it doesn't matter. Even if Bitcoin can crash in a day it doesn't usually swing that much in the milliseconds it takes your order to reach the exchange. It's the $1000 you can lose overnight not the $1 you can lose between clicking sell and actually selling you should worry about.
...more evidence of evolution doesn't change the opinion of people who don't believe in evolution. More evidence of Holocaust doesn't change the opinion of Holocaust deniers. Some people refuse the axioms of the scientific method, they've decided what the truth is and will ignore or alter the facts to preserve their belief. To the paranoid, everybody is out to get you and only pretending otherwise. To the conspiracy theorists, if it contradicts the theory it's part of the conspiracy. Also if it's not working, you're not doing it right or it's not a proper implementation of your ideology or religion. And if nothing else works call it fake news and muddy the waters as best you can, if the signal doesn't support your case bury it in noise.
As game developers, we call our automated agents "AI" in a long tradition of overloading and bastardizing words from other fields, but we all understand it's not actually real "AI" of any sort. I mean, even pathfinding goes under the term "AI" for our purposes. So, yeah, this is deep learning, but no more "AI" than what we do inside the games. Very often, we actually have to work to make our opponents *less* effective, because computers have so many advantages over players, especially in any game at all where reflexes count, or broad analysis of lots of details is important.
So to flip the board, is it fair to hamstring the AI because humans can't keep up? If we're not making a game for entertainment here, if the computer's AI drone pilots can decimate your fleet of human pilots why shouldn't it play to win? I don't mean to take the human factor out of it, but doesn't war often come down to arms and numbers? I doubt there was any true difference in the level of motivation for the Axis and the Allies, it was a war for survival. So from the computer's POV it's just playing an advanced game of Civilization, build the economy, build the military, conquer and win. Maybe you can score the occasional win on creativity but if you have more troops, better equipped troops, better supply lines, better positioned troops like pieces on a chess board you'll grind down the opposition. Though to be honest I don't see an AI on top, but even a small group of AI-assisted leaders can direct millions of people. If you're leading China's armed forces I doubt you see the actual people as such.
Sounds like a typical Trump and Trump supporter response - blame someone else. :-)
Um, it wouldn't make much sense for Trump supporters to "blame" anyone for electing Trump. That would be the realm of left-wing voters wondering how the heck the Democrats managed to lose. How Hillary lost to Obama back in 2009 is pretty easily explained by the charisma and skill he displayed in law school. How she lost to Trump, eh... it had to be a vote against her as much as a vote for Trump. I'm not sure the pounding Trump is taking in the media actually helps or whether it just twists the knife in the wound that the American people would rather have this guy than her...
Whatever you do in comments, easter eggs and joke RFCs, fine. Polluting communication protocols with your in-jokes is crossing the line IMHO. I don't want Chrome, Safari, Edge, Apache, IIS, nginx and all sorts of cache/proxy solutions have to deal with 418 "I'm a teapot" just because somebody found it funny. There's a time and a place for humor, this is not it. I'm not going to complain about custom texts for errors though, as long as they can be safely ignored you can claim lp0 is on fire for all I care.
It would not be shocking to learn of newly-identified problems with vaccines, particularly in newer formulations. Though it would be shocking indeed to learn of problems worse than polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. because we know that without vaccines those will kill and maim large numbers of people every year.
The problem is that it's a kind of tragedy of the commons, it's pretty hard to create anything without any side effects to anyone. People can die from anaphylactic shock after a bee sting. So if everyone else around you are immunized you have a rather massive herd immunity which makes it unlikely that you will be infected. If you're the only anti-vaxxer you'll do great, you avoid the possible side effects and in all likelihood the disease itself. If a lot of people start believing it the herd immunity is gone and you'll have an epidemic. A parallel would be the military and pacifists, if people were coming to kill you would you really let them? Or did you just take the moral high ground knowing there's a lot of non-pacifists who'll get their hands dirty for you fighting for your freedom while you're way behind the battle lines? The troll in me wants to place them at the front lines, you can shoot or be shot. Then we'd see how many are truly pacifists when they can't hide behind others.
Just tell them it's a death star.
Companies working on embedded systems for aircraft, cars and other road vehicles really care a lot about performance, especially when there are so many different CPU and GPU's on the market, all priced by the core, clock speed and pixel draw rate. If they can maintain interactivity while being able to use a cheaper CPU/GPU combo, they will.
Which is why they're going to completely lose out to Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, just like major phone brands crumbled and fell when the iPhone arrived. We all know it sucks, but after all you're buying the car first and the infotainment center second. My bet that in not so long their self-made junk is replaced by what's essentially an embedded smartphone for when you don't have one connected.
Unity was always a farce, many of us warned you. Now you want our help cleaning up the mess you've made?
To be fair, Canonical went where a lot of the market - Microsoft, in particular but a lot of other tech pundits too - thought the world was heading. Convergence, touch, one OS from smartphones to desktops. In retrospect, it's easy to see they were wrong. Microsoft had to backpedal on the Windows 8.x UI and Windows Phone is dead. Android and Chromebooks haven't merged, neither has iOS and macOS. You might say the Surface line has proven that cross-over devices aren't totally dead, but it's more of a border skirmish than all-out war. I don't know, it might have flopped because the implementation was bad too. But it mainly flopped because the market wasn't there.
Even SpaceX admits that for more distant missions (far outer planet destinations, oort cloud, etc), scaling chemical rockets is not sufficient.
Well, on the Falcon Heavy page they list payload to Pluto and escape velocity is only 0.39 km/s (0.03+0.02+0.11+0.20+0.03) more delta-v than that so anything inside the Sun's gravity well like the far outer planets is quite reachable by chemical. If you do ITS-style fueling in orbit or slingshot around Jupiter probably with a decent size payload too. The Oort cloud is a lot further out though, Voyager is at 139 AU and the lowest estimate for where it might begin is 2000 AU so like 500+ years even with all the gravity slingshots Voyager got. Since you won't get the same slingshot again until 2151 and the chemical propulsion is only a small part of Voyager's total speed I think you're looking at centuries even with a massive efficiency boost through fission.
Is it *really* "licensing disputes" on 40-some year old movies because the soundtrack or some actor didn't have a clause for digital distribution? I mean, a movie made in 1970, many of the principals are probably *dead* by now. They're not cruising iTunes or Amazon and calling up Sidney Bloomenberg on the phone and bitching they're not getting a cut. Their ancestors are merely happy that a check still shows up once in a while.
1. I think you mean descendants not ancestors.
2. You think dealing with heirs is easier. I think it's harder because there can be many heirs, they got no relation to the movie business, no career or portfolio to think of and very often they don't have the same interest in the art - it's an inheritance and they want cold hard cash. And they know their little piece of it is blocking a big release so they try charging a lot for it. And if there's many such little pieces, the project might not be worth doing.
I think some Linux game porting companies have experienced this, the game developer didn't think there was business in making a Linux version. But if somebody else wants to do a port, then they charge a ridiculous license fee because if somebody's trying to buy it then it must be very valuable. There's some strange logic to this at times, sure a lot of people will let things they don't use or need go easily. But you also see cases where something has been rusting in a barn for years, but if you try buying it then they'd rather not sell than make a "bad" sale. Even though there's no indication they'll ever get the real value out of it.
There are now so many different streaming services that its starting to make sense to combine them and sell them as a package. The problem is that this will bring back the old rot of trying to force people to buy packages they dont want just to get one damn show.
Well with cable you have their set top box and their selection of packages. While there's certainly a few "anchor" series like Game of Thrones, I doubt they'll be able to pull off the "our way or the highway" strategy as well as in the past.
The bastard is ignoring the court ruling and is keeping the access way blocked. I'd like to see the judge issue an arrest warrant for contempt of court.
Well until the judgement is final it's not final. Though I like the approach they typically take to this type of cases here in Norway, which is to impose daily fines. They typically can't be stayed so you can delay and appeal all you like but the claim against you is constantly accumulating and if you eventually lose it's going to be pretty massive. It's the same for missing building permits and such too, they can't ask you to raze anything. But if you've built it illegally and want to drag it out through the court system a few years, it's going to cost you dearly.
The problem is that blogs, armchair pundits and apparently young and impressionable Libertarians take a scientific finding of a possible link and does that classic "science says men are X and women are Y!".
Pretty sure geneticists say women are X and men are Y ;)
Several times in fact, various flavors. They actually aren't bad. Until you're on day 4 with the same damned fettuccine alfredo, then you start thinking of that hot girlfriend who couldn't boil water without messing up.
Not hot. Not going to be your girlfriend. Or boyfriend, if that's how you swing. But I have messed up boiling water for noodles, my blood alcohol level at the time may be related.
I cook. I enjoy cooking. I use spices to cut the salt and fat, and most people complement me on my cooking.
Me too, if they find me cooking they say "I think you could use some help with that".
I can't imagine any prepackaged meal being either A) better than I could make myself; or B) Healthier than I can make myself. I can see C) faster than I can make myself; and D) humping it in a desert and wanna eat
If you include my natural tendency to make stuff with lots of fats and sugar because they taste good, I'm going with e) all of the above. Seriously, it takes a chef to make a salad taste good. Junk food and lots of toppings? Even I can't screw up that badly.
Ideally I'd have a robot chef to make me fresh meals. But second to that, I'm willing to indulge any attempt to make better preprocessed food.
MREs are trying to achieve two goals, if you haven't eaten for a week you're ready to eat anything. But to keep a decent stack in an economic fashion you'll want to rotate out the oldest and have your soldiers eat it without a rebellion rather than write it off as a loss. I've eaten some of the freeze dried stuff they use here in Norway, it's okay for the occasional meal. But it doesn't come close to the fresh meal you could bring for the first couple days of any trip.
I know some space enthusiasts talk about even a single civilization sending out a Von Neumann probe resulting in the whole galaxy being blanketed in a few hundred million years... but space is big, hostile, slow to traverse, and resources are really tough to get access to.
On the other hand we are really impatient because of our human life span. A hundred thousand years travelling and a million years per planet to build up the resources to shoot off another probe is not a blocker if we can only make self-maintaining/repairing technology to last that long. We have attention span of maybe ~100 years, if your grandkids won't see any benefit it's too far out. Then again, given the technological progress we've made in the last 100 years it's probably for the best that we don't focus on projects of that magnitude.
For example, I expect that within the next thousand years we can create life entirely from scratch. As in from a computer model and base elements bio-print a cell with DNA, put it in an artificial womb and grow in vitro humans. Forget generation ships, forget even sending frozen eggs and sperm that'll probably decay underway. We'll send data - with integrity checks - and build people on site, the first generation raised by robots, most likely humanoid androids. That all seems more likely than rewriting the laws of physics.
And longevity experiments, like can we create RTGs and processors that can last hundreds of years here on earth. More bad-ass telescopes too. And Mars is a good test bed for starting off on a rocky world with nothing. The finish line is so far out of reach you can't see it. But I mean before 1992 extra-solar planets was a theory. We haven't exactly done bad for the last 25 years despite not returning to the moon, we've just focused on other areas because the next rock has seemed pretty far out of reach. Even with Mars, some will certainly whine about when we'll go to the stars. Not any time soon...
LOL, where do you guys get this stuff?
For most of us there's a clear barrier between imagination and reality, dreams and being awake, fact and fiction. For some, that barrier is broken. You can see that there's "fashions" in lunacy, like after Roswell lots of people claimed to have been abducted by aliens. People read about being abducted by little grey men, then they get abducted by little grey men. A lot of the seed stories aren't created by loons though, like for example there's good indication that Roswell was about making money. And it worked extremely well, maybe they weren't exactly your average tourist but a lot of people came and spent a lot of money they'd never have otherwise.
Which is why I'm pretty sure most of the political conspiracy theories are plants, because even if they're nuts at some point Obama had to spend time and resources disputing the lunacy. And once the ball is rolling everyone can add their own flavor. Father born in Kenya? Let's start a birther theory. Middle name Hussain? Let's start some theories that he's a Muslim... and a terrorist. Black man? Let's start some "Malcom X" theories for white people, some "Uncle Tom" theories for black people. Probably some Illuminati/NWO too, that works for all people in power. The conspiracy theorists tend to love it when you pile it on. And once you get a big enough ball rolling, you start setting off the "no smoke without fire" alarms even in more reasonable people.
The Internet has been a great boon for conspiracy theorists, because even though it's made people with very narrow interests make contact with like-minded all over the world it's also enabled echo-chambers with their entirely own alt-reality. And a lot of people think doing "research" on say #pizzagate is reading all the drivel and watching all the YouTube videos about it. Then you have the semi-reputable sites like Breitbart feeding the fire by keeping an arm's length distance from the actual conspiracies while driving people to them. So plants are the spark, conspiracy nuts the kindling and alt-sites bring the firewood. And the rest of the world wonders why the fires are so hard to put out...
There's two fundamentally different perspectives here, the short perspective is Google's hiring situation right now. Hiring less qualified workers because they improve a diversity metric is both unfair to those better qualified and tarnishes the reputation of the entire class of workers. The long perspective is whether this has anything to do with biology or is the result of a cultural and social bias that girls like dolls and boys like cars you'd have to start undoing in daycare. If he had only attacked the short view and said that Google should invest in long term programs to produce female candidates that would get the job on merit, I think he'd be fine.
Though I haven't read the whole thing, my impression was that he instead went a little bio-deterministic and said that's just how the sexes are by nature and that Google should just accept that members of a particular sex are, on average, better at certain things. Even though that's certainly true in some cases as I doubt the Olympics will drop the female categories any time soon, it's a very contentious issue when it comes to intellect and personality traits. There's certainly a massive overlap, social attitude towards a female car mechanic or male nurse is probably way more important than biology. But some still think it's a good idea to fix the numbers first and then the attitude, because often the proof is in the result.
Furthermore, it's a deliberately introduced bug
Yeah, as long as you intentionally fuck up the "get data" function you can make any kind of sensor or input device malicious. The samples are often a static size though so it's like:
byte[sample_size] buffer;
memcpy( dev, buffer, sizeof(buffer));
Sure you could fuck that up if you wanted to... but it's rather contrived. Now, string handling the C way... kill it with fire.
Probably not unexpected, you have the quad-channel memory controller, the CCX interconnect, all the PCIe lanes, probably hard to power everything down. Since this is mostly a spin-off of the server chips I doubt they've given it that much care, a server with 32 cores is rarely idle. If you really wanted to bring the idle consumption down I think you'd have to do some kind of heterogeneous computing, but then you'd need a lot of OS/application support. I don't think AMD should bet on that, we saw how their APUs didn't really give much CPU+GPU synergy because nobody was writing special code paths just for a part of one player's processors.
If you're buying a Ryzen Threadripper or Skylake-X for gaming, I can say you've already messed up. [car analogy] That's like buying an 18-wheeler to haul your weekly groceries.[/car analogy]
...and then complain that everybody talked about cargo capacity and didn't mention it would be hard to park, doesn't have seats to take your kids to soccer practice and has terrible MPG for your commute.